When Termination Of Contractual Appointment Is Stigmatic, Principles Of Natural Justice To Be Followed : Supreme Court
Gyanvi Khanna
31 Aug 2024 6:30 AM GMT
The Supreme Court recently (on August 28) reiterated that when the termination of a contractual appointment is stigmatic, then principles of natural justice have to be followed.
The Court also observed that merely because an appointment was made on a contract basis, following an application for compassionate appointment, would not constitute an appointment under Dying in Harness Rules.
"The mere fact that the respondent was appointed on contract basis pursuant to the application for compassionate appointment would not make his ppointment to be one under Dying in Harness Rules.," the Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Pankaj Mithal held.
In the present case, respondent Brijesh Kumar (through his mother) had applied to UP State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) for a compassionate appointment. However, there was no response from the department.
Following this, there was another application filed under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (Rules). Subsequently, he was informed that the corporation had decided to appoint him on preferential basis as a contract conductor. During his tenure in this role, he was found guilty on two occasions of carrying three passengers without tickets and on another occasion carrying 500 kg of extra luggage.
Consequently, his services were terminated on 30.01.2016 due to misconduct. He filed a writ petition, before the Allahabad High Court, challenging this order. His stance was that since the appointment was on the grounds of compassion, his employment was permanent. Thus, his services could not have been terminated without conducting disciplinary inquiry. The same was allowed by the High Court. This order was challenged by UPSTRTC before the Supreme Court.
The Division Bench noted that instead of a compassionate appointment, the respondent was extended the benefit of a policy decision. The policy granted preferential treatment in appointing dependents of deceased employees on a contractual basis. This appointment was not only accepted by the respondent but also signed by him.
“Despite repeated queries, no specific material was shown from the side of the respondent to establish that the respondent in fact was appointed on compassionate basis. The respondent had accepted the offer of contractual employment with his open eyes and had even signed the agreement to that effect which is not disputed. Thus, his appointment was simply on contract basis and cannot be treated as permanent.,” the Court said.
On this account, the Court set aside the impugned order stating that the High Court has erred in its finding and completely misread the material on record.
Notwithstanding, the Court pointed out that the respondent's services were terminated without him being afforded any opportunity. Besides, no show-cause notice was issued. Based on this, the Court underscored the importance of adhering to natural justice principles even in contractual appointments.
“The termination order is apparently stigmatic in nature which could not have been passed without following the Principles of Natural Justice was not even supplied to the respondent. No show cause notice appears to have been issued to the respondent. Therefore, the order of termination of his services, even if on contractual basis, has been passed on account of alleged misconduct without following the Principles of Natural Justice. The termination order is apparently stigmatic in nature which could not have been passed without following the Principles of Natural Justice.”
In the light of these facts and circumstances, the Court found the termination order to be unsustainable and set the same aside. At the same time, the Court also made it clear that the appointment of respondent was contractual in nature.
“The judgments and orders of the High Court dated 12.01.2018 and 12.09.2018 are set aside to the extent they hold the appointment to be on compassionate basis under the Dying in Harness Rules and that of a permanent nature but quashing of the termination order is maintained.,” the Court held.
Case Details: U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS. V. BRIJESH KUMAR & ANR., ARISING OUT OF S.L.P (C) NO.10546 OF 2019
Citation : 2024 LiveLAw (SC) 628
